ALTER COLLATION ... REFRESH VERSION - sample script outdated
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-altercollation.html
Description:
The sample script that is given in section "Notes" finds only libc
collations. If you omit joining "pg_depend" you also find outdated ICU
collations. Like this:
DO $BODY$
DECLARE
r RECORD;
BEGIN
FOR r IN (
SELECT n.nspname, c.collname
FROM pg_collation c JOIN pg_namespace n ON c.collnamespace =
n.oid
WHERE c.collversion <> pg_collation_actual_version(c.oid)
) LOOP
EXECUTE format('ALTER COLLATION %I.%I REFRESH VERSION;', r.nspname,
r.collname);
RAISE NOTICE 'ALTER COLLATION %.% REFRESH VERSION;', r.nspname,
r.collname;
END LOOP;
END;
$BODY$;
Re: more detailed description of tup_returned and tup_fetched
On 2021/05/20 17:38, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: On 2021/05/20 17:00, Fujii Masao wrote: On 2021/05/20 9:46, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: On 2021/05/18 20:10, Fujii Masao wrote: pg_stat_database.tup_fetched: Number of index entries returned by scans on indexes in this database Is this the sum of pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_read? This is accounted to pg_stat_database.tup_returned. I was thinking that pg_stat_database.tup_fetched is the same as the sum of pg_stat_all_tables.idx_tup_fetch. Because they both are incremented by bitmap index scans, but pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_read is not. Yes. So, "Number of index entries returned by scans on indexes in this database" is incorrect, and "Number of live rows fetched by index scans in this database" is correct? Yes, I think so! Thanks! I updated the patch for summarizing this thread. Thanks for updating the patch! LGTM. This is an improvement of documentation, so this should be applied in v15 dev cycle? If so, could you add the patch to the next CF? Or you think this is a bug fix and needs to be back-patched? Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
Re: Additional Chapter for Tutorial
On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 08:47 +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > Peter changed the status to 'Returned with feedback' at the end of the > last commit fest. I'm not absolutely sure, but my understanding is that > the patch is rejected. There is a different status for that. "Returned with feedback" means: there was review, and further work by the author is needed, or we need more discussion if we want that or not or how it should be, but there hasn't been a lot of feedback from the author lately, so it seems that just moving it on to the next commitfest is not the right thing to do. You are welcome to re-submit the patch if you address the feedback. Yours, Laurenz Albe
Re: Additional Chapter for Tutorial
Hi Jürgen, What's going to happen with this work? If you intend to have it eventually committed, I think it will be necessary to make the patches smaller, and bring them into the commitfest app, so that others can follow progress. I for one, cannot see/remember/understand what has been done, or even whether you intend to continue with it. Thanks, Erik Peter changed the status to 'Returned with feedback' at the end of the last commit fest. I'm not absolutely sure, but my understanding is that the patch is rejected. -- Jürgen Purtz
